tv [untitled] September 22, 2010 5:30pm-6:00pm PST
we complied. but i think the issue here is the new drawling that i gave to her had a door on the ground floor, which should not be there because the approved plan did not have it in the first place. originally, it was not there. but my structural engineer was trying to get us an addendum. last time we had this meeting, they would not approve. so we had to stick with the original approved plan.
any questions? >> good afternoon. i am engineer of the project. -- the electrical engineer of the project. i sent a letter to the city of san francisco and talked to them about the door on the ground floor. the homeowners have no right to remove that door down there when they are going to create only access through the backyard. was that? president peterson: thank you. we will hear from the other side.
>> is it done? president peterson: thank you. if we can hear from the appellants now, you also have three minutes. >> i am one of the homeowners adjacent. i am somewhat disappointed that after she had directives given to her by this body to produce certain documents -- the grading, the letters -- my understanding is she did not produce those. my greatest fear is that there will be a refutation of the last case we just heard. at this juncture, we need to make sure she follows the approved plans, not afterwards, when there is all kinds of things that have been put in there and i have to keep coming
back. we have been here three times. the committee has been very clear that she had to produce certain documents today so that you can see that she will adhere to the original plan. if she has not done that, i do not see how she can get an actual permit to start? i do not want to repeat the same thing we heard 15 minutes ago over and over again that something was built that was not on the original plan. i will give the rest of the floor to the other neighbor. >> i am peter linn and i am a neighbor directly behind the proposed property. the issue of the third story or the door in the back -- that was supposed to be subterranean as part of her basement. what she is planning on doing is upgrading the entire lot. the lot is on a slope. by doing that, she will
potentially undermine my property. she is putting an entire living space underground. it will not be underground now. she will grade and potentially undermine my property. that was done in an addendum. the san francisco home owners' association approved a building that stayed with the grade of our neighborhood, which is what is required there. this was slipped in. there has been one after another, beginning with my mother's forged the name on a document submitted to the homeowners' association. it has been one after another of different addendums sliding things in. a larger for raj door was slipped into an addendum. the house has been made a little bit taller. she is using this addendum process to circumvent you guys, i think. what was originally proposed is
very far from what she is trying to build now. we do not want to keep doing this. we just saw with this other project. we would like her to stick with what originally was approved by the board of the homeowners' association. >> mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department staff. i did speak with the permit holder's architect last thursday. during his testimony, he indicated he had submitted materials to me. i have not received any materials from him. we did discuss last week that they would need to submit materials. this was the thursday before the hearing that was the last day to submit those materials. i told him to contact the executive director and the board of appeals to get clarification on what the sport had required. also at the last hearing, due to
research from the appellant, we were able to find out that they were going to try to do certain things under the addenda, outputing two 8-foot wide rush doors with a 20-foot curb cuts as opposed to what was approved. there was also a plant their wanted to submit that would braid around the rear of the house -- grade around the rear of the house and definitely would change what we had approved. i said to them at the last hearing that they could not make these changes under the addenda. i am not aware of the current state of the addenda and what steps is that are at this point. i did inform the department of public works about the concerns we had. it was on an application with the wider sidewalk that the appellate found the sidewalk. i told them definitely not to issue any permit that did not match what we had an -- had
originally approved. that is all i have to say on this matter. commissioner garcia: if we a grant the appeal -- if we grant the appeal and overturned the permit, and as the year and a day applied? >> would not be able to apply for the same project until one year has elapsed. president peterson: i have one question about language access in your office. do you have competent people who speak in multiple languages at your office? >> we do. we have multan lingual phone numbers as well. you can call and request information in your native tongue. we would have someone return that call to them. president peterson: thank you. >> mr. kornfield, do you have anything to add? and is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the
matter is submitted. commissioner fung: well, commissioners, i thought we were very specific what we needed at this meeting and the information was not provided. the situation is the following right now. if you look at the site permits, it is almost exactly the same as the 311. it shows that the things that were mentioned in the various letters -- it was also very similar to the set that was initially approved by the homeowner's association. two major issues there. one was whether the rear of the building was a retaining wall
and therefore had no windows and therefore there was no grading beyond that point up to the next street. secondly, as mr. sanchez indicated, the sides of the garage. what we asked for last time was also some idea of the proposed typography of the grading the permit holder wanted to do and to establish their for an elevation to this building that then would establish the height of the building with respect to the site. that was not provided to us. we have two choices. one is to revoke the permit.
the second is to approve the permit as is with the understanding both the planning and building departments need to review in the addenda that have applied to get and not see if it matches up against the approved site permit. if we were to do that, i would condition the permit in the following way. that is that the finished elevation of the ground floor be established no higher than 395 or 396 based on the survey that we saw. commissioner garcia: what you are proposing would take care of the issue with the garage, the curb cut, and degrading to the rear. all that would have to conform to the original plans. commissioner fung: correct. commissioner garcia: can we ask
that no addenda be applied for? i do not think we can. commissioner fung: the addendum are not appealable to us. >> i know. you would understand this, being an architect. i am worried about after it leaves here if they go and apply for an addenda, is there a possibility they would get that and might end up with a garage wider than has been approved, a curb cut whiter than has been approved, a back door because there has been re-grading? vice president goh: we heard from planning the only reason they knew about it was because of dpw. president peterson: the appellant told us. vice president goh: so we would not necessarily even know, and even dbi or planning would not. commissioner fung: i think we
have asked both departments to be sensitive to tracking this through and making sure the addenda correlate to the site permit. president peterson: i would defer to the planning department on this, but if the board were to modify this permit and grant it on the condition that the driveway can only be a certain amount, would the department be able to later grant and addenda allowing the driveway to differ from what the board has limited it to under this permit? >> scott sanchez. the building department is the first step in the process. they will receive the addendum from the project architect and then will decide if there are changes that need to be reviewed by planning. that is the first step in the process. definitely our department would not want to approve anything, even without the board conditioning it. we believe it should be built as per the site plan. this was the result of a
discretionary review application as well. the board making findings and conditions would only strengthen that. commissioner garcia: just to review, the issues have to do with the grading, the width of the garage, the width of the curb cut, and the height. >> i understand it to be the width of the garage door, the width of the curb cut, the grading, and the overall height. president peterson: what about the back door? >> that resulted from the grating. it would not allow them to have the back door, which would be accessed from a plea room on the ground level. -- that resulted from the rading. -- grading. it would not allow them to have the back door, which would be accessed from a play room on
the ground level. president peterson: thank you. are those the conditions, then? commissioner fung: yes. just to make sure it is quite clear, we would condition the permit so that the four items are specifically noted and the 2007 height permit is the basis for all future addenda. i would add a fifth one, which is that the finished elevation of the ground floor would be somewhere around 395 or 396 based on what i saw in the survey. vice president goh: i will likely support a motion with those conditions. and it is troubling to me that a
project sponsore would go againt a really direct very clear request. i mean, probably not troubling enough for me to say "deny this permit and prevent people from building for over a year," but almost that troubling. >> so, is there a motion? vice president goh: he is still looking. commissioner garcia: they are waiting on you. commissioner fung: i so move. are those conditions clear to you? >> it would be very helpful if they were restated.
my understanding is that this motion is to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the conditions that the finished elevation of the ground floor be no higher than 396 feet, based on what is in the site survey. commissioner fung: 395 or 396, depending on their final grading. it was not easy to ascertain exactly where it is pending their detailed drawings. >> how would that final height be determined? commissioner fung: it would be up to the permit holder, but it establishes a point from which the building will not extend beyond two stories from the upper side. >> to say that the ground floor shall be no higher than 395 or
396 feet? commissioner fung: the elevation is above sea level, so it is 395. >> sea level, ok. commissioner fung: that would be condition 1. condition to is that site permit drawings and dated 2007, i believe -- vice president goh: can we confirm which plans? >> what we would refer to as the site permit, which was issued on april 27, 2000 and six, is on the overhead. -- 2006 is on the overhead.
>> so the site permit drawings issued april 2006. commissioner fung: just to reiterate from that that the rear wall at the grade is a retaining wall and that there isbehind it. that is three. no. 4 is that the garage door is 12 feet in width and a curb cut of 10 feet. >> if you could repeat that? commissioner fung: grosz door is 12 feet, as shown -- the garage door is 12 feet, as shown on the permits, with a curb cut of 10 feet. >> just to note again the date, we would want to refer to it as
approved by the department of building inspection stamp, which has march 29, 2010. that would be the date the permit was issued and the date of the plans we would refer to. that is march 29, 2010. approved then by the department of building inspection. >> the site permits drawings approved by dbi would be the basis for all future addenda. the garage door opening as shown on the site permit with a curb cut of 10 feet. i believe you're moving on to another item. commissioner fung: the other points i already talked about was the rear of the building.
>> the rear wall is a retaining wall withbehind it. commissioner fung: and the finished floor on an elevation of 3952396. -- 395 to 396. vice president goh: i only heard four conditions and i thought he said five. where there for? -- were there four? commissioner fung: i did say five, but i think i was incorrect. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> item 6 has been dismissed and will not be called this evening. shall we take a short break?